Patna High Court
Raju Kumar Jha @ Raju JhaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- RITESH KUMAR
Holding
The dismissal orders were set aside and the matter remitted for a fresh departmental enquiry, holding that the petitioner’s right to natural justice was violated and that parity with the co‑accused required a re‑examination of the case.
Summary
The petitioner, a constable appointed in 2013, was charged with taking money for postings and illegally cutting a Seesam tree, leading to departmental proceedings and his dismissal on 31 July 2021. He contended that the enquiry officer denied him the right to produce defence witnesses, relied on inadmissible evidence such as an untested CD recording, and that the disciplinary authority failed to consider his show‑cause reply. The State argued that the enquiry was conducted in accordance with the Bihar Government Servants (CCA) Rules, 2005 and that the evidence, though not examined in a criminal trial, was sufficient on a pre‑ponderance of probabilities. The High Court examined precedents on natural justice, the limited scope of judicial review in departmental matters, and the principle of parity with a co‑accused who received a lesser punishment after a fresh enquiry. Finding that the petitioner’s right to a fair enquiry was violated and that parity demanded a fresh enquiry, the Court set aside all dismissal orders and remitted the matter to the disciplinary authority for a fresh enquiry. The writ petition was allowed.
Issues considered
- The departmental enquiry complied with the principles of natural justice and Article 311(2) of the Constitution.
- The evidence on record satisfied the standard of proof of pre‑ponderance of probabilities required in disciplinary proceedings.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to parity of punishment with co‑accused Santosh Kumar Ojha who received a lesser penalty after a fresh enquiry.
- Whether the disciplinary authority erred by not considering the petitioner’s defence and show‑cause reply.
- Whether the High Court may interfere with findings of fact in a departmental enquiry under Article 226.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Government Servants (CCA) Rules — s. 2005
- Bihar Police Manual — s. 1978, Appendix 84, Rule 824(A), Rule 825
- Constitution of India — s. Article 226, Article 311(2)
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872
- Indian Forest Act — s. 33, 42
- Indian Penal Code — s. 109, 408
Subjects
- departmental enquiry
- dismissal from service
- natural justice
- Article 311
- parity of punishment
- pre‑ponderance of probabilities
- Article 226 writ jurisdiction
- procedural fairness
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2016 of 2023
======================================================
Raju Kumar Jha @ Raju Jha Son of Kailash Jha Resident of Mohalla-
Kumhrar, D, Shanti Market, Teacher Colony, P.O.- Bahadurpur Housing
Colony, P.S.- Agamkuan, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Additional Director General of Police, (Bazette, Appeal and Welfare),
Bihar, Patna.
4. The D.I.G. of Police, Shahabad Range, Dehri-On-Sone.
5. The S.P., Kaimur at Bhabhua.
6. The S.P., Rohtas.
7. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Mohania, Kaimur (Bhabua).
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Sr. Advocate
: Mr. Ramakant Singh, Advocate
: Ms. Sandhya Kumari, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Manish Kumar, GP-4
: Mr. Manoj Kumar, AC to GP-4
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 12-02-2026
Heard the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following reliefs:-
“for issuance of appropriate writ,
order or direction to set aside
the order of dismissal dated
31.07.2021 (Annexure-7) passed
by S.P., Kaimur and order of
dismissal dated 24.08.2021
(Annexure-8) passed by S.P.,
Patna High Court CWJC No.2016 of 2023 dt.12-02-2026
2/30
Rohtas and order of D.I.G. of
Police, Shahabad Range, Dehri-
on-Sone dated 24.12.2021
(Annexure-10) by which appeal
of the petitioner has been
rejected and order of Director
General of Police, Bihar, Patna
dated 29.08.2022 (Annexure-12)
by which memorial of the
petitioner has been rejected and
for grant of all consequential
benefits.”
3. At the outset, the learned senior counsel for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as a
Constable in the district of Kaimur on 06.08.2013 and he was
working to the satisfaction of the authorities concerned. No
complaint whatsoever was made against the petitioner. All of a
sudden, a complaint was made against the petitioner and
sargeant major Santosh Kumar Ojha for managing posting after
taking money and for cutting down and transporting Seesam tree
from the Police Line to Saw Mill for personal benefits.
Accordingly, Memo of Charge was served upon the petitioner
wherein altogether five charges were levelled. The charge was to
the effect that the petitioner is taking money in lieu of choice
posting from others and for cutting Seesam tree from the Police
Line without any authority for his personal gain. On the basis of
Patna High Court CWJC No.2016 of 2023 dt.12-02-2026
3/30
the above-mentioned charges, departmental proceeding was
initiated against the petitioner and he was directed to file his
show cause reply. The petitioner submitted his show-cause reply
wherein he denied all the charges levelled against him, with
request to exonerate the petitioner of the charges levelled against
him. The Presenting Officer and the Enquiry Officer were
appointed and the Enquiry Officer proceeded to enquire on all
the five charges levelled against the petitioner.
4. It has been submitted by the learned senior
counsel for the petitioner that after examination of the
prosecution witnesses, the petitioner submitted his last show
cause reply before the Enquiry Officer, wherein he denied all the
charges levelled against him. The Enquiry Officer after
conducting the enquiry, including taking evidences of different
prosecution witnesses, giving an opportunity to the petitioner to
cross-examine the prosecution witnesses, submitted his enquiry
report before the disciplinary authority on 31.03.2021, wherein
he came to the conclusion that all the charges levelled against
the petitioner have been found to be proved. The disciplinary
authority issued second show cause notice to the petitioner with
a direction to submit his reply within ten days. In compliance
thereof, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply, through
Patna High Court CWJC No.2016 of 2023 dt.12-02-2026
4/30
proper channel, wherein he denied all the charges levelled
against him. The disciplinary authority vide his impugned order
contained in Memo No. 2096 dated 31.07.2021, without even
considering the show cause reply submitted by the petitioner, in
a mechanical manner found the same to be unsatisfactory and
proceeded to award punishment of dismissal from service upon
the petitioner w.e.f. 30.07.2021 and further directed that during
the period of suspension i.e. 25.02.2019 to 28.03.2019, the
petitioner will not be entitled for any further benefit, apart from
whatever given to him.
5. It has further been contended by the learned
senior counsel for the petitioner that since during pendency of
the departmental proceeding, the petitioner was transferred from
Kaimur (Bhabua) to Rohtas, therefore, vide Memo No. 4456
dated 24.08.2021, the Superintendent of Police, Rohtas passed
the same order i.e. dismissal of the petitioner from service,
which was earlier passed by the Superintendent of Police,
Kaimur (Bhabua) vide Memo No. 2096 dated 31.07.2021.
6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further
submits that the petitioner preferred statutory appeal before the
D.I.G., Shahabad Range, Dehri-on-Sone against the order of
dismissal, on 16.09.2021, but the D.I.G., Shahabad Range,
Patna High Court CWJC No.2016 of 2023 dt.12-02-2026
5/30
Dehri-on-Sone vide Memo No. 3290 dated 24.12.2021, without
considering the grounds taken in the memo of appeal, proceeded
to confirm the order of the disciplinary authority and rejected
the appeal of the petitioner. Being aggrieved with the order
dated 24.12.2021 passed by the Appellate Authority, the
petitioner preferred Memorial before the Additional Director
General of Police (Budget, Appeal and Welfare), Bihar, Patna on
02.04.2022, but again the Director General of Police, Bihar,
Patna, without considering the grounds raised in the Memorial,
proceeded to confirm the order passed by the Disciplinary
Authority and the Appellate Authority, rejected the Memorial
preferred by the petitioner vide letter no. P-3/13-07-19/2021/513
dated 29.08.2022.
7. It has further been submitted by the learned
Senior counsel for the petitioner that although the petitioner
submitted a request before the Enquiry Officer to bring defence
witnesses, but the same was not allowed by the Enquiry Officer.
Further, the alleged call recording between the petitioner and
Chintu Kumar Singh was not sent to F.S.L. for testing its
genuineness, so that it can be proved that the voice of the
petitioner was there in the C.D., even the basic principles of
Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India has not been
Patna High Court CWJC No.2016 of 2023 dt.12-02-2026
6/30
followed.
8. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of
respondent no.6 wherein no reply has been given to the specific
averments made by the petitioner in paragraph no.16 of the writ
petition, pointing out the deficiencies in the enquiry report as
well as the orders passed by the authorities concerned.
9. A counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf
of the respondent no.5 wherein it has been submitted that
charges levelled against the petitioner were found to be
grave/serious in nature, as such he was put under suspension and
departmental proceeding was initiated against him. The memo
of charge along with list of documents and witnesses was
supplied to the petitioner. A first information report was also
lodged against the petitioner bearing Bhabua P.S. Case No. 116
of 2019 dated 09.03.2019 for the offences punishable under
Sections 408/109 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 33/42
of the Forest Act. Show cause notices were issued to the
petitioner and opportunity was given to the petitioner to submit
his reply. The reply submitted by the petitioner on 11.03.2019
was found to be not satisfactory. The Enquiry Officer proceeded
with the departmental proceeding wherein the petitioner
appeared and the witnesses were examined/cross-examined,
Patna High Court CWJC No.2016 of 2023 dt.12-02-2026
7/30
thereafter petitioner submitted his written submission before the
Enquiry Officer wherein the petitioner submitted that the
departmental proceeding be kept in abeyance, since a criminal
case on the same set of charges is also pending against the
petitioner. The request of the petitioner was rejected on the basis
of settled proposition of law that both the proceedings can
continue simultaneously. The Enquiry Officer on the basis of
examination of witnesses during course of enquiry and on the
basis of materials available on record submitted his enquiry
report with the finding that the charges levelled against the
petitioner have been found to be proved and agreeing with
opinion of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority issued
second show cause notice to the petitioner against the proposed
punishment. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show
cause before the disciplinary authority, who after considering the
materials available on record and the nature of charges against
the petitioner, proceeded to dismiss the petitioner from service
vide impugned order contained in Memo No. 2096 dated
31.07.2021. The petitioner preferred service appeal before the
D.I.G., Shahabad Range, upon which the D.I.G., Shahabad
Range after considering the materials available on record
including the enquiry report and the statement of witnesses
Patna High Court CWJC No.2016 of 2023 dt.12-02-2026
8/30
dismissed the service appeal of the petitioner on 24.12.2021.
The petitioner preferred a Memorial before the competent
authority and finally the same was dismissed vide order dated
25.08.2022 by the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna after
considering the entire materials available on record, with a
finding that the petitioner failed to produce any supporting facts
by which the charges can be found to be not proved. There are
serious charges of corruption against the petitioner and the same
has been proved in the departmental proceeding and no
allegation of violation of natural justice or the procedure
prescribed under Bihar Government Servants (CCA) Rules,
2005 has been levelled by the petitioner.
10. The learned counsel for the State has relied on
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. Versus S. Sree Rama Rao
wherein it has has been held as under:-
"7. ... The High Court is not constituted
in a proceeding under Article 226
of the Constitution a court of
appeal over the decision of the
authorities holding a departmental
enquiry against a public servant: it
is concerned to determine whether
the enquiry is held by an authority
competent in that behalf, and
Patna High Court CWJC No.2016 of 2023 dt.12-02-2026
9/30
according to the procedure
prescribed in that behalf, and
whether the rules of natural justice
are not violated. Where there is
some evidence, which the authority
entrusted with the duty to hold the
enquiry has accepted and which
evidence may reasonably support
the conclusion that the delinquent
officer is guilty of the charge, it is
not the function of the High Court
in a petition for a writ under Article
226 to review the evidence and to
arrive at an independent finding on
the evidence...."
11. The learned counsel for the State further relies
on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The
State of Karnataka & anr Versus N. Gangaraj, passed in Civil
Appeal No.8071 of 2014 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has held as under:-
"The disciplinary authority
agreed with the findings of the
enquiry officer and had passed
an order of punishment. An
appeal before the State
Government was also dismissed.
Once the evidence has been
accepted by the departmental
authority, in exercise of power of
judicial review, the Tribunal or
the High Court could not
Patna High Court CWJC No.2016 of 2023 dt.12-02-2026
10/30
interfere with the findings of
facts recorded by appreciating
evidence as if the Courts are the
Appellate Authority. We may
notice that the said judgment has
not noticed larger bench
judgments in S. Sree Rama Rao
and B.C. Chaturvedi as
mentioned above. Therefore, the
orders passed by the Tribunal
and the High Court suffer from
patent illegality and thus cannot
be sustained in law. Accordingly,
appeal is allowed and orders
passed by the Tribunal and the
High Court are set aside and the
order of punishment imposed is
restored."
12. A rejoinder to the counter affidavit has been
filed on behalf of the petitioner wherein a specific stand has
been taken that although in paragraph no.16 of the writ
application, the petitioner has taken some specific
grounds/pleadings while assailing the impugned proceedings as
well as the impugned orders, but in none of the counter
affidavits, those grounds/pleadings have been controverted by
the respondents, though some grounds/pleadings are related with
the factual aspect of the case, therefore, the same can be treated
as admitted facts/pleadings in between the parties.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2016 of 2023 dt.12-02-2026
11/30
13. It has further been contended in the rejoinder
affidavit that for proving the charge of taking money in lieu of
giving choice posting by the petitioner, only C.D. of
conversation between one Chintu Kumar Singh with the
petitioner has been relied upon by the Enquiry Officer, but the
same is not an admissible evidence in law. No witness has been
examined by the prosecution to prove the fact that the same has
been done after making payment of money/bribe to the
petitioner and in absence of the such documentary evidences
and/or oral evidence, such charges cannot be said to be proved
against the petitioner. Further, so far the charges with regard to
cutting of Seesam Tree/Wood and sending the same to the Saw
Mill from Police Line is concerned, the same cannot be proved
in absence of the owner of the Saw Mill, namely, Imteyaz, who
was not examined in the enquiry proceeding, although he was
one of the competent and vital witnesses to substantiate such
charge.
14. It has further been contended by the petitioner
that although other similarly situated co-delinquent, i.e. Santosh
Kumar Ojha, who was also dismissed from service, but on his
appeal/memorial preferred before the Additional Director
General of Police, Bihar, Patna, direction was issued for
Patna High Court CWJC No.2016 of 2023 dt.12-02-2026
12/30
reconsidering the matter and based upon the same vide memo
no. 2034 dated 30.07.2022 issued under the signature of the
Superintendent of Police, Kaimur, a direction has been issued to
take fresh decision on initiation of the departmental proceeding
afresh, since the proceeding conducted against Shri Ojha was
found to be in complete violation of Rules 17 & 18 of the Bihar
Government Servants (CCA) Rules, 2005.
15. A supplementary affidavit has also been filed on
behalf of the petitioner wherein the Additional Director General
of Police (Budget, Appeal and Welfare), Bihar, Patna vide his
letter no. 55/2022/141 dated 12.07.2022 proceeded to set aside
the order of punishment of Santosh Kumar Ojha and directed the
disciplinary authority to consider the show cause submitted by
Shri Santosh Kumar Ojha and to take decision on initiation of
departmental proceeding afresh, since the order of punishment
was passed in complete violation of the provisions contained in
Rules 17 & 18 of the Bihar Government Servants (CCA) Rules,
2005. Accordingly, a fresh enquiry was initiated against Shri
Santosh Kumar Ojha and after detailed enquiry, the Enquiry
Officer submitted his report vide Memo No. 4892 /2024 dated
11.09.2024 whereby he found the said charges to be proved
against Shri Ojha. On the basis of the enquiry report submitted
Patna High Court CWJC No.2016 of 2023 dt.12-02-2026
13/30
by the Enquiry Officer vide memo no. 3928 dated 07.12.2014
issued under the signature of the Superintendent of Police,
Kaimur found the said Shri Santosh Kumar Ojha to be guilty of
the charges and proceeded to impose punishment of stoppage of
two increments with cumulative effect which will be equivalent
to three Black Mark and he will not be entitled for any further
benefit for the period under suspension, apart from whatever has
been given to him.
16. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner
submits that the enquiry report is based on in-admissible
evidence and in support thereof he relies on the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Roop Singh Negi
Versus the State of Punjab reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570
wherein in paragraph nos.14 & 15, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India has held as follows:-
"14. Indisputably, a departmental
proceeding is a quasi-judicial
proceeding. The enquiry officer
performs a quasi-judicial
function. The charges levelled
against the delinquent officer
must be found to have been
proved. The enquiry officer has a
duty to arrive at a finding upon
taking into consideration the
materials brought on record by
Patna High Court CWJC No.2016 of 2023 dt.12-02-2026
14/30
the parties. The purported
evidence collected during
investigation by the Investigating
officer against all the accused by
itself could not be treated to be
evidence in the disciplinary
proceeding. No witness was
examined to prove the said
documents. The management
witnesses merely tendered the
documents and did not prove the
contents thereof. Reliance. inter
alia, was placed by the enquiry
officer on the FIR which could
not have been treated as
evidence.
15. We have noticed hereinbefore
that the only basic evidence
whereupon reliance has been
placed by the enquiry officer was
the purported confession made
by the appellant before the
police. According to the
appellant, he was forced to sign
on the said confession, as he was
tortured in the police station.
The appellant being an employee
of the Bank, the said confession
should have been proved. Some
evidence should have been
brought on record to show that
he had indulged in stealing the
bank draft book. Admittedly,
Patna High Court CWJC No.2016 of 2023 dt.12-02-2026
15/30
there was no direct evidence.
Even there was no indirect
evidence. The tenor of the report
demonstrates that the enquiry
officer had made up his mind to
find him guilty as otherwise he
would not have proceeded on the
basis that the offence was
committed. in such a manner
that no evidence was left."
17. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner
submits that no witness was examined on the allegation of
managing posting for money and the enquiry report was based
on the C.D. conversation between Chintu Kumar Singh and the
petitioner, but said Chintu Kumar Singh was neither examined
nor produced for cross-examination. The petitioner was never
posted with the sergeant major and the C.D. was never examined
by the FSL. Even the petitioner was not the custodian of Police
Line or the Seesam Wood, the owner of the Saw Mill was not
examined, the Seesam Wood was sent on the orders of the
sergeant major (who has been awarded with lesser punishment)
and the petitioner was denied opportunity to produce defence
witnesses named in paragraph no. 16 (iv) and (v) of the writ
petition.
18. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner
relies upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
Patna High Court CWJC No.2016 of 2023 dt.12-02-2026
16/30
the case of Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank versus Rajendra
Singh reported in (2013) 12 SCC 372, wherein the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in paragraph nos. 17, 18 & 19.5 has held
as follows:-
"17. If there is a complete parity in the
two sets of cases, imposing different
penalties would not be appropriate
as inflicting of any/higher penalty in
one case would be discriminatory
and would amount to infraction of
the doctrine of equality enshrined in
Article 14 of the Constitution of
India. That is the ratio of Rajendra
Yadav cases, already taken note
above. On the other hand, if there is
some difference, different penalty
can be meted out and what should be
the quantum is to be left to the
appellate authority. However, such a
penalty should be commensurate
with the gravity of misconduct and
cannot be shockingly
disproportionate. As per the ratio of
Obettee (P) Ltd. case even if the
nature of misconduct committed by
the two sets of employees is same,
the conduct of one set of employees
accepting the guilt and pleading for
lenient view would justify lesser
punishment to them than the other
employees who remained adopted
Patna High Court CWJC No.2016 of 2023 dt.12-02-2026
17/30
the mode of denial, with the result
that charges stood proved ultimately
in a full-fledged enquiry conducted
against them. In that event, higher
penalty can be imposed upon such
delinquent employees. It would
follow that choosing to take a chance
to contest the charges such
employees thereafter cannot fall
back and say that the penalty in their
cases cannot be more than the
penalty which is imposed upon those
employees who accepted the charges
at the outset by tendering
unconditional apology.
18. This, according to us, would be the
harmonious reading of Obettee (P)
Ltd. and Rajendra Yadav cases.
19.5. The only exception to the principle
stated in para 19.4 above, would be
in those cases where the co-
delinquent is awarded lesser
punishment by the disciplinary
authority even when the charges of
misconduct were identical or the co-
delinquent was foisted with more
serious charges. This would be on
the doctrine of equality when it is
found that the employee concerned
and the co-delinquent are equally
placed. However, there has to be a
complete parity between the two, not
only in respect of nature of charge
Patna High Court CWJC No.2016 of 2023 dt.12-02-2026
18/30
but subsequent conduct as well after
the service of charge-sheet in the two
cases. If the co-delinquent accepts
the charges, indicating remorse with
unqualified apology, lesser
punishment to him would be
justifiable."
19. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner
further submits that the driver constable Jaswant Singh who took
the Seesam Wood to the Saw Mill was never proceeded against
and no action has been taken against him. Even the Sergeant
Major Santosh Kumar Ojha who was the main accused in the
first information report and was subjected to departmental
proceeding, but was awarded lesser punishment of withholding
of two annual increments with cumulative effect which is
equivalent to three black marks, whereas the petitioner whose
name transpired during course of investigation in the first
information report, was inflicted with punishment of dismissal
from service. Finally, he submits that the impugned orders have
been passed without considering the points raised by the
petitioner, before the Enquiry Officer in the enquiry report, by
the Disciplinary Authority in the punishment order, by the
Appellate Authority in the appeal and the Designated Authority
in the memorial. He relies on a judgment in the case of the Roop
Singh Negi versus The State of Punjab reported in (2009) 2
Patna High Court CWJC No.2016 of 2023 dt.12-02-2026
19/30
SCC 570 to substantiate his claim wherein in paragraph no. 23,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-
“23. Furthermore, the order of the
disciplinary authority as also the
appellate authority are not
supported by any reason. As the
orders passed by them have
severe civil consequences,
appropriate reasons should have
been assigned. If the enquiry
officer had relied upon the
confession made by the appellant.
there was no reason as to why the
order of discharge passed by the
criminal court on the basis of
selfsame evidence should not
have been taken into
consideration. The materials
brought on record pointing out
the guilt are required to be
proved. A decision must be
arrived at on some evidence,
which is legally admissible. The
provisions of the Evidence Act
may not be applicable in a
departmental proceeding but the
principles of natural justice are.
As the report of the enquiry
officer was based on merely ipse
dixit as also surmises and
conjectures, the same could not
have been sustained. The
Patna High Court CWJC No.2016 of 2023 dt.12-02-2026
20/30
inferences drawn by the enquiry
officer apparently were not
supported by any evidence.
Suspicion, as is well known,
however high may be, can under
no circumstances be held to be a
substitute for legal proof.”
20. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner
further relies on another judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of Allahabad Bank & Ors. Versus
Krishna Narayan Tewari reported in (2017) 2 SCC 308,
wherein in paragraph no.7, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
has held as follows:-
"7. We have given our anxious
consideration to the submissions
at the Bar. It is true that a writ
court is very slow in interfering
with the findings of facts
recorded by a departmental
authority on the basis of evidence
available on record. But it is
equally true that in a case where
the disciplinary authority records
a finding that is unsupported by
any evidence whatsoever or a
finding which no reasonable
person could have arrived at the
writ court would be justified if
not duty-bound to examine the
matter and grant relief in
Patna High Court CWJC No.2016 of 2023 dt.12-02-2026
21/30
appropriate cases. The writ court
will certainly interfere with
disciplinary enquiry or the
resultant orders passed by the
competent authority on that basis
if the enquiry itself was vitiated
on account of violation of
principles of natural justice, as is
alleged to be the the position in
the present case. Non-application
of mind by the enquiry officer or
the disciplinary authority, non-
recording of reasons in support of
the conclusion arrived at by them
are also grounds on which the
writ courts are justified in
interfering with the orders of
punishment. The High Court has,
in the case at hand, found all
these infirmities in the order
passed by the disciplinary
authority and the appellate
authority. The respondent's case
that the enquiry was conducted
without giving a fair and
reasonable opportunity for
leading evidence in defence has
not been effectively rebutted by
the appellant. More importantly
the disciplinary authority does
not appear to have properly
appreciated the evidence nor
recorded reasons in support of
Patna High Court CWJC No.2016 of 2023 dt.12-02-2026
22/30
his conclusion. To add insult to
injury the appellate authority
instead of recording its own
reasons and independently
appreciating the material record,
simply reproduced the findings of
the disciplinary authority. All
told, the enquiry officer, the
disciplinary authority and the
appellate authority have faltered
in the discharge of their duties
resulting in miscarriage of
justice. The High Court was in
that view right in interfering with
the orders passed by the
disciplinary authority and the
appellate authority."
21. The learned counsel for the State, on the other
hand, submits that no document has been brought on record in
support of the statement that the petitioner ever made any
request to bring defence witnesses, before the Enquiry Officer
and no such objection or request was ever made by the petitioner
to test the call recording by the F.S.L. during the departmental
proceeding or in any of the show cause reply submitted by him
or in the appeal or memorial. It has further been submitted that
so far parity with Sergeant Major Santosh Kumar Ojha is
concerned, he was also dismissed from service w.e.f. 31.08.2021
but in appeal, his case was remitted for fresh consideration since
Patna High Court CWJC No.2016 of 2023 dt.12-02-2026
23/30
he had raised his ground that some of the witnesses who
deposed against him in the departmental proceeding were earlier
proceeded with departmentally at the behest of Shri Santosh
Kumar Ojha. After remand, a fresh departmental proceeding was
initiated against the said Shri Santosh Kumar Ojha and he has
been given lesser punishment. He has further submitted that the
documentary evidence were produced as well as witnesses were
examined in presence of the petitioner, but he did not raise any
dispute, rather he put his signature upon each and every page
and has also exhibited the evidence, therefore, the writ petition
is fit to be dismissed.
22. The learned counsel for the State relies on the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Airports Authority of India versus Pradip Kumar Banerjee
passed in Civil Appeal No. 8414 of 2017 wherein in paragraph
nos. 32 to 34 and 37 to 38, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
has held as follows:-
"32. It is trite law that in disciplinary
proceedings, it is not necessary for the
Disciplinary Authority to deal with each
and every ground raised by the
delinquent officer in the representation
against the proposed penalty and
detailed reasons are not required to be
recorded in the order imposing
Patna High Court CWJC No.2016 of 2023 dt.12-02-2026
24/30
punishment if he accepts the findings
recorded by the Enquiry Officer. Our
view stands fortified by the decision of
this Court in Boloram Bordoloi-vs.-
Lakhimi Gaolia Banka, wherein it was
held:-
"11. Further, it is well settled that if the
disciplinary authority accepts the
findings recorded by the enquiry
officer and passes an order, no
detailed reasons are required to be
recorded in the order imposing
punishment. The punishment is
imposed based on the findings
recorded in the enquiry report, as
such, no further elaborate reasons
are required to be given by the
disciplinary authority."
33. All that is required on the part of the
Disciplinary Authority is that it should
examine the evidence in the disciplinary
proceedings and arrive at a reasoned
conclusion that the material placed on
record during the course of enquiry
establishes the guilt of the delinquent
employee on the principle of
preponderance of probabilities. This is
precisely what was done by the
Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate
Authority while dealing with the case of
the respondent.
34. In our considered view, the Division
Bench fell into grave error in
Patna High Court CWJC No.2016 of 2023 dt.12-02-2026
25/30
substituting the standard of proof
required in a criminal trial vis-a-vis the
disciplinary enquiry conducted by the
employer. It is a settled principle of law
that the burden laid upon the
prosecution in a criminal trial is to prove
the case beyond reasonable doubt.
However, in a disciplinary enquiry, the
burden upon the department is limited
and it is required to prove its case on the
principle of preponderance of
probabilities. In this regard, we are
benefitted by the judgment of this Court
in the Union of India-vs. Sardar
Bahadur, wherein this Court held as
follows: -
"15. … A disciplinary proceeding is not
a criminal trial. The standard proof
required is that of preponderance of
probability and not proof beyond
reasonable doubt. If the inference
that Nand Kumar was a person
likely to have official dealings with
the respondent was one which a
reasonable person would draw from
the proved facts of the case, the
High Court cannot sit as a court of
appeal over a decision based on it.
Where there are some relevant
materials which the authority has
accepted and which materials may
reasonably support the conclusion
that the officer is guilty, it is not the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2016 of 2023 dt.12-02-2026
26/30
function of the High Court
exercising its jurisdiction under
Article 226 to review the materials
and to arrive at an independent
finding on the materials. If the
enquiry has been properly held the
question of adequacy or reliability
of the evidence cannot be canvassed
before the High Court."
37. The position is, thus, settled that in an
intra-court writ appeal, the Appellate
Court must restrain itself and the
interference into the judgment passed by
the learned Single Judge is permissible
only if the judgment of the learned Single
Judge is perverse or suffers from an
error apparent in law. However, the
Division Bench, in the present case,
failed to record any such finding and
rather, proceeded to delve into extensive
re-appreciation of evidence to overturn
the judgment of the learned Single
Judge.
38. Ongoing through the material on record,
we are of the view that the Disciplinary
Authority was fully justified in imposing
the penalty of dismissal from service
upon the respondent. The Appellate
Authority too has duly applied its mind
to the facts available on record while
affirming the order of the Disciplinary
Authority and rejecting the appeal filed
by the respondent. These two orders
Patna High Court CWJC No.2016 of 2023 dt.12-02-2026
27/30
have rightly been affirmed by the
learned Single Judge of the High Court
while dismissing the writ petition filed by
the respondent. The judgment dated 29th
June, 2011 rendered by the learned
Single Judge is well-reasoned and
unassailable."
23. The learned counsel for the State submitted that
from the above-mentioned judgment, it is clear that if any lacuna
happened during departmental proceeding, it cannot vitiate the
entire proceeding, for the wrong committed by the delinquent.
The learned State counsel further relies on an order passed by a
Division Bench of this Court dated 01.04.2016 passed in L.P.A.
no. 34 of 2024 with regard to testing on genuineness of
electronic evidence, wherein it has been held that in a domestic
enquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the
Indian Evidence Act may not apply. All materials which are
logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible. There is
no allergy to hearsay evidence, provided it has reasonable nexus
and credibility.
24. The learned State counsel finally submits that
based on the judgments referred above and the observations
made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the said
judgments wherein it has been held that the dismissal order is
not to be interfered with on technical defects in the conduct of
Patna High Court CWJC No.2016 of 2023 dt.12-02-2026
28/30
the enquiry or culmination of the departmental proceeding in
punishment, as in the present case also the enquiry was carried
out with proper evidence and the Superintendent of Police,
according to the power vested under Rule 824 (A) of the Bihar
Police Manual, 1978, which is on the theorem based on
delegated power rendered under the provisions of the Bihar
Police Manual, 1978 read with appendix 84 thereof, fully
justifying the whole procedure adopted for departmental
proceeding as sacrosanct in eye of law and further Rule 16(1) of
the Bihar Government Servants (CCA) Rules, 2005 read with
Rule 825 of the Bihar Police Manual empowered to take action.
25. From the arguments advanced on behalf of the
parties and after going through the materials available on record,
I find that for the charges levelled against the petitioner, a proper
departmental proceeding was initiated wherein ample
opportunity was given to the petitioner and no document has
been brought on record to suggest that the petitioner had made a
request before the Enquiry Officer or even before the
Disciplinary Authority/Appellate Authority and the authority
competent to decide the Memorial, preferred by the petitioner,
that he was never given any opportunity to produce any of the
witnesses in his defence. After conclusion of the departmental
Patna High Court CWJC No.2016 of 2023 dt.12-02-2026
29/30
proceeding, the Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report
before the Disciplinary Authority and the Disciplinary authority
proceeded to pass the order of punishment whereby the
petitioner has been dismissed from service for the charges
levelled against him and which were found to be proved by the
Enquiry Officer. Even the appeal and memorial preferred by the
petitioner have been rejected, but all the orders of punishment
i.e. the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the Appellate
Authority and the order passed by the Director General of Police
have not taken into consideration the grounds taken by the
petitioner in his defence, since no consideration has been found
to have been done in the orders impugned.
26. Further, I find from the records that the
respondent authorities have proceeded to reconsider the case of
one Santosh Kumar Ojha, against whom identical charges were
levelled and first information report was lodged against him and
on reconsideration a fresh enquiry was conducted and on the
basis of fresh enquiry report, lesser punishment has been
awarded to him. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the
petitioner is also entitled for parity on the ground that since
charges were identical in the case of the petitioner and Santosh
Kumar Ojha, then the case of the petitioner is also to be
Patna High Court CWJC No.2016 of 2023 dt.12-02-2026
30/30
considered in the same manner in which the case of Santosh
Kumar Ojha was considered.
27. Accordingly, the order impugned contained in
Memo No. 2096 dated 31.07.2021, Memo No. 4456 dated
24.08.2021, Memo No. 3290 dated 24.12.2021 and letter no. P-
3/13-07-19/2021/513 dated 29.08.2021 are hereby set aside.
28. The matter is remitted back to the Disciplinary
Authority to reconsider the matter afresh from the stage of fresh
enquiry as has been done in the case of Santosh Kumar Ojha and
to pass fresh order after considering the enquiry report and the
show cause reply, if any, to be submitted by the petitioner to the
said enquiry report. The entire exercise must be completed
within a period of four months from the date of production of a
copy of the order and the Disciplinary Authority will
communicate the fresh order to be passed by him to the
petitioner.
29. With the aforementioned observations and
directions, the present writ petition is allowed.
(Ritesh Kumar, J)
AjayMishra/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 04.02.2026
Uploading Date 12 .02.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.